Archive for: June, 2010

Obama Slams Republicans for Blocking Unemployment Benefits

Jun 30 2010 Published by under Featured News, Republican Party

During his town hall meeting in Racine, WI, President Barack Obama used the bully pulpit to bludgeon the Republican Senators in Congress who blocked an extension of benefits for jobless Americans, “So their prescription for every challenge is pretty much the same basically cut taxes for the wealthy, cut rules for corporations, and cut working folks loose to fend for themselves.”

Obama first described the basic legislation he wants passed, “And that’s why I’ve been fighting, in addition to everything we’ve done, for additional steps to speed up this recovery and keep the economy growing. We want an extension of unemployment benefits for workers who lost their job through no fault of their own. We want to help small business owners get the loans they need to keep their doors open and hire more workers. We want relief for struggling states so they don’t have to lay off thousands of teachers and firefighters and police officers.”

Later he described the political calculus behind the GOP’s obstruction, “Now, some of this is just politics. That’s the nature of Washington. Before I was even inaugurated, there were leaders on the other side of the aisle who got together and they made the calculation that if Obama fails, then we win. Right — that was the basic theory. They figured if we just keep on saying no to everything and nothing gets done, then somehow people will forget who got us into this mess in the first place and we’ll get more votes in November. And, you know, that will make people pretty cynical about politics.”

In a matter of fairness, he discussed the GOP’s ideological flaws, “Now, let’s be fair though. The other party’s opposition is also rooted in some sincere beliefs about how they think the economy works. They think that our economy will do better if we just let the banks or the oil companies or the insurance industry make their own rules. They still believe that, even after the Wall Street crash, even after the BP oil well blew, that we should just keep a hands-off attitude. They think we should keep doing what we did for most of the last decade leading up to the recession.”

Obama returned to a theme of 2008 nomination acceptance speech, “ So their prescription for every challenge is pretty much the same — and I don’t think I’m exaggerating here — basically cut taxes for the wealthy, cut rules for corporations, and cut working folks loose to fend for themselves. Basically their attitude is, you’re on your own.”

He concluded by reframing the discussion not as big government versus small government, but as responsible versus irresponsible government, “So I want everybody to understand, this debate that we’re having in Washington is not about big government or small government. It’s about responsible government. It’s about accountable government. It’s about whose side government is on. It should be on the side of the American people. A government that breaks down barriers to opportunity and prosperity. That’s the kind of government we need. That’s the kind of government I’m trying to give you.”

Obama’s remarks today demonstrated his growth as a president. The uncertain grasp of the bully pulpit that characterized many of his first year speeches has been replaced with the language of a man who knows the reach and impact of the words of a president. A president should shine the bright light of the presidency of the Senate Republicans who are callously hurting the unemployed in their quest for angry votes of support in November. Obama did what a good president does. He spoke for the American people.

The president masterfully reframed the discussion. He shifted the discussion out of the Republican arena of big versus small government towards asking a very simple question. Whose side are the Republicans on? When the Republicans do things like support BP after the oil spill in the Gulf by opposing a lifting of liability caps, they are making it clear whose interests they will represent if they are returned to power. When Republicans block extending unemployment benefits to the jobless, it makes it clear that they are not on the side of those Americans who are struggling.

The great hope of the GOP strategy for November is that voters are so angry that they forget about the incompetence and unaccountability of the Republican Party during their previous era of mismanagement. Their desire is not to provide solutions to America’s problems, but to return themselves to what they view as their rightful place atop the government. Their belief in a government by the special interests for the special interests is the reason why they are out of step with the American people on most issues, and it is the exact reason why their dreams of a congressional takeover are likely to turn to dust by November. Obama has shown his fellow Democrats the path, now they must follow it in elections all across the country this November.

A full transcript of Obama’s speech can be found here.

33 responses so far

Democrats Chip Away at 40 Years of Radical Pro-Business Legislation

This morning, on a day when a category one hurricane is rushing into the Gulf, a Senate committee voted to eliminate limits on liability that oil companies would face for damages stemming from offshore spills like the one in the Gulf of Mexico. The President signaled his support for higher or no caps on liability for oil companies earlier this month. While it may seem like this is just another meaningless vote, a closer examination reveals a huge paradigm shift under way, and it would be wise for voters to pay attention.

Democrats Try to Protect Fisherman in the Gulf

The Senate Senate Environment and Public Works Committee voted to eliminate liability caps for oil companies. The change, if approved (it still needs to be debated next month) would apply retroactively to BP’s Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf.

Reuters reports:

“The oil spill prompted Democrats to move quickly to eliminate the liability limits. Initially, they were pushing for a $10 billion cap, but were convinced by the Gulf of Mexico spill that a more ambitious approach was necessary.

Senate Republicans blocked earlier efforts to pass this legislation in the full Senate using a fast-track procedure.”

The Republicans have had a hard time deciding where they stand on this issue, but they keep coming out as supporters of BP rather than of the people of the Gulf, as best exemplified with Joe Barton’s apology to BP over the President’s request that they set aside twenty billion dollars in an escrow account for victims.

The President was most likely trying to avoid allowing the fate of Alaska’s Exxon Valdez victims to befall the residents impacted by Deepwater Horizon. In the years after the Valdez, Exxon Mobil attacked the award on several fronts, using both maritime law and the federal Clean Water Act, to argue that they were exempt from punitive damages. The US Supreme Court’s eventual ruling slashed their recovery of punitive damages from about $75,000 apiece to $15,000.

It should be noted that in 2005, the oil and gas industries were exempted from the Clean Water Act under the Bush administration.

The Exxon Valdez victims (32,677 fishermen and other interests ) fought Exxon for over 17 years in court, only to have the court awarded damages (1994) cut significantly due to a Supreme Court decision written by Justice David Souter, who said that the $5 billion punitive award against Exxon for spilling millions of gallons of crude oil into Prince William Sound in 1989 was excessive.

Justice Souter wrote that since Exxon Valdez “was caused by recklessness, rather than intentional wrongdoing,” Exxon should not be held to paying more than compensation for actual economic harm suffered. This ruling was seen as a huge victory for business.

In 2008, Sarah Palin, then Governor of Alaska, spoke about how disappointed she was over the ruling; however, later when running for VP, she claimed she was a part of holding the oil companies responsible and took credit for bringing Exxon to heel to the people, a stance which embittered Alaskans who still feel the sting of the Supreme Court decision.

“The president supports removing caps on liability for oil companies engaged in offshore drilling,” said White House spokesman Ben LaBolt. “Oil companies should have every incentive to maximize safety and arbitrary caps on liability create a disincentive to achieve that goal.”

When one looks at all of the many assaults on the people’s rights and the environment under the Republican/conservative driven legislation over the majority of the last 40 years, one simply can’t argue that both parties are the same. This small step to remove a liability cap would be a small but important change in the way America does business.

Obama and the Democrats are sending a message to big business that (it should be noted that while Republicans tout “small business owners” as their raison d’être, their actual policies support and enable big business and corporate America) they are not being given a free pass and will be held accountable for their actions. Being held accountable hopefully leads to a company being more inclined to promote safety, which in turn is good for workers and the environment. Accountability is a free market principle, which makes the Republicans desire to give business a pass again a rather remarkable radicalization and bastardization of their own philosophy.

In small, unseen ways, the party you vote for affects your life, the environment, safety standards, the values of social justice, etc every day. While I have often been in favor of balance between the two parties, as I believe in the intrinsic value of rigorous debate, this country is suffering from the implementation of extreme, radical Right values and desperately needs several years of Democratic rule in order to recover some semblance of balance. Being pro-business does not have to necessarily imply that we careen off the cliff into radical, unbalanced legislation such as we have seen over most of the last 40 years, and as became a bitter parody of free market principles left unchecked and unacknowledged by their own party under George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Photo Courtesy of

27 responses so far

Tea Party Tories: How the Right Hijacked the Founding Fathers

Jun 29 2010 Published by under Featured News

The Right and the Tea Party like to think of themselves as freedom fighters in the mold of the Founding Fathers, but a closer look reveals that their revolution is really devolution, because at its core, conservatism is about returning to the past. Upon examination it turns out the Tea Party has more in common with King George, than the Founding Fathers.

Conservatism is the most common attitude in the history of mankind. Conservatism is the desire to maintain the status quo – both with regards to the customs and the institutions of the past. The reason is simple: most people are not comfortable with new ideas or their application.

Conservatism is not about change but about stasis (from Greek στάσις “a standing still”).

As the Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1967) has it, “Conservatism is…the preference for what has grown up over a long period of time in contrast to what has been made by deliberate human contrivance.” (2:195).

The United States of America is undeniably the result of “deliberate human contrivance.”

Lord Hugh Cecil wrote in 1912 (Conservatism 25) that “Before the Reformation it is impossible to distinguish conservatism in politics, not because there was none, but because there was nothing else.” Since that time there have been those who are for change and those who oppose it. While the conservative attitude has always been with us the name “conservatism” itself only developed in London and Paris around 1830 (2:195) and by 1835 was in use by British Tories.

“Conservatism most precisely denotes a hostility to radical social change, particularly social change that is instituted by the force of the state and justified by an appeal to abstract rights or to some Utopian aim.” (Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2:195)

The ideas of the Founding Fathers can reasonably be characterized as Utopian and seen as justified by an appeal to abstract rights.

The Declaration of Independence can be seen as the high point of the European Enlightenment, enshrining as it does the liberal principles of the time.

And these were liberal principles. Not conservative. They were liberal then and they are liberal now. The idea put forward by modern conservative “thinkers” that the opposite is true is without foundation. Revolution cannot come about from a conservative mindset; it can only come about as a result of liberal thinking. Any conservative revolutionary movement will be a counter-revolutionary movement, designed to restore the status quo in the wake of drastic change.

Liberalism on the other hand stresses change. The very original ideas of the Enlightenment turned the world upside down. Humans are rational animals it was now said, and they could prosper without the old demands, promises and threats of religion. Happiness became paramount: “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Life. Liberty. Happiness. Not heaven. Not salvation. And faith was now a faith in science, faith in humanity and in progress, in reason and in education. At the heart of the Enlightenment lay the ideal of social justice, as enshrined in the above quote from the Declaration of Independence.

“In the revolutionary situation there was general support for the polemics of Jefferson,Paine, Joel Barlow and others who argued that “natural rights”(life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) constitute the foundations of social justice. Governments are artificial contracts designed to protect these inalienable rights.” (Encyclopedia of Philosophy 1:84)

Our American government was based not on conservative biblical principles but on those of the Enlightenment, on a trust not in God but in humankind. It was optimism that fueled America’s experiment in liberty and democracy; it is fear of the mob and its demand for change that fueled, as it has always fueled, conservatism.

It has been claimed, of course, that the revolution was not a revolution at all, but a “war of independence” but that claim is belied by a simple appeal to the literature of the time.

Rip Van Winkle didn’t wake up shocked because the world had stayed the same, because the status quo had been maintained. He was shocked by change, by the results of liberalism. In the Washington Irving story, Rip Van Winkle falls asleep before the French Revolution and sleeps for over twenty years. An entire generation has passed:

“The very character of the people seemed changed. There was a busy, bustling disputatious tone about it, instead of the accustomed phlegm and drowsy tranquility.” There are new terms and ideas: “rights of citizens – elections – members of Congress – liberty…and other words which were a perfect babylonish jargon to the bewildered Van Winkle.”

As historian Gordon S. Wood observes, “In a few short decades Americans had experienced a remarkable transformation in their society and culture, and like Rip and his creator, many wondered what had happened and who they really were.” (Empire of Liberty 1)

Yet we see conservatives writers like Thomas E. Woods, author of the “Politically Incorrect Guide to American History” (2004) make claims like this of the colonists: “They were not revolutionaries seeking the radical restructuring of society.” The chain of logic here (if it can be called that) is that “The Americans who protested against British encroachments on colonial liberties wanted to preserve their traditional rights.” (Woods 11).

Thomas E. Woods might think so. Washington Irving (April 3, 1783 – November 28, 1859), who grew up in the wake of all that change Woods insists the colonists did not want, saw things more clearly. The attempt made by Woods and others like him to relegate “innovation” to simply unwanted new taxes is a specious line of reasoning which would make the revolution a conservative reaction to the encroaching evils of liberalism, a complete inversion of historical fact.

Mr. Woods’ book might indeed be politically incorrect; it is certainly historically incorrect. If Woods’ “conservative revolution” would have materialized the king would have stayed and we’d be singing “God Save the Queen” rather than the “Star Spangled Banner.”
Amusingly, Woods appeals to the Magna Carta (1215), the Petition of Right (1628) and the Bill of Rights (1689) in defense of his arguments (and presumably of the colonists), but these documents were themselves innovations raised in opposition to the status quo.

In point of fact, taxes are as old as prostitution. Kings have always imposed taxes. It was part of the old conservative fabric of society. The idea that a government would not be able to tax the populace is a liberal one. Opposition to taxes, not taxes themselves, is the true innovation.

If we follow Woods’ reasoning to its logical conclusion, he overturns his own thesis.

As should be obvious by now, it is a logical impossibility that the American revolutionaries who gave us the United States were conservatives. American Tories, or Loyalists, those who supported the king against the revolutionaries, were conservatives. Their math was simple: change=bad, stasis=good, kill the rebels and restore royal rule – obey the king and keep things as they were.

The American conservative movement today is of a counter-revolutionary nature, a reaction to and against the liberal principles of the Enlightenment, and an attempt to turn the clock back to pre-Reformation days when God, not humankind, was the center and focus of human endeavor, when not natural rights but divine restrictions were the order of the day – a retroactive attempt to turn America into something it was never designed or created to be, indeed, could not have been before the Enlightenment.

15 responses so far

Keith Olbermann Slams Sarah Palin’s Ronald Reagan Gaffe

Jun 29 2010 Published by under Featured News

Yep, she went to Reagan's home state, and got Reagan wrong.

During his Worst Persons segment on his MSNBC show Countdown host Keith Olbermann saved some special scorn for Sarah Palin and her gaffe riddled speech at Stanislaus. Olbermann pointed out that Palin managed to get Ronald Reagan’s home state wrong, and added, “None is more symbolic as her corner-cutting, her downright endorsement of stupidity.”

Here is the video:

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Olbermann said of Palin, “But our winner yes, Sister Sarah. You’ve by now heard the gaffe fest that was her speech. She said, perhaps, at least 100 things that brand her as a phony. But none is more symbolic as her corner-cutting, her downright endorsement of stupidity than intelligence than this one. ‘Because this is Reagan Country. yeah! and perhaps it was destiny that the man who went to California’s Eureka College would become so woven within and interlinked to the Golden State.’ Eureka College is in Eureka, Illinois, Illinois where Ronald Reagan is from. There is a town of Eureka in California, but it doesn’t have a college. and Palin went to three different colleges but doesn’t have an education.”

Once again, I disagree with Olbermann. I don’t think Palin is an idiot. I think her Stanislaus Shakedown was a full on display of her laziness and lack of preparation. She wasn’t stupid. I would call the speech disjointed, mind numbing, torturous, and disgrace to anyone with a high school diploma, but not stupid. She filled the speech with lots of stuff. It is too bad none of that stuff had anything to do with higher education.

There is a reason why Palin normally blacks out the media from covering her speeches. She is so terrible that if her speeches for hire were televised, she would not only doom the remaining shreds of her political future, but her ATM called the lecture circuit would quickly dry up. I can’t think of a bigger waste of the $93,000 than what Stanislaus did when they paid Palin to speak at their gala.

It is surprising that she got Reagan’s biographical information wrong, because she is running around the country resurrecting his name at every turn to try to convince 2012 GOP primary voters, that Ronald Reagan has been reincarnated as a factually challenged, lazy, half term governor from Alaska. No Keith, Sarah Palin is not an idiot, but she also isn’t qualified to be president of the school board, much less president of the United States.

105 responses so far

Sean Hannity Bashes Gun Locks Then Admits He Uses Gun Locks

Jun 28 2010 Published by under Featured News

Don't trust this man with your charity fundraiser or advice on the Second Amendment

On his Fox News program Hannity tonight, host Sean Hannity upped the ante in his bid to be named most unintentionally funny Fox News show, by first bashing gun locks then in the same breath admitting that he uses gun locks in his own home, thereby undercutting his entire fear mongering rant against gun locks.

Here is the video courtesy of Media Matters:

While debating gun locks with Fox News contributor Bob Beckel, Hannity claimed to be against them, but also using them, “Hey Bob, what are you supposed to do when the criminal comes into your house? Hang on a second, I know the combination. What is it sweetheart? You know? Did you ever try? I have a gun lock. I use them, but also they have a new safe where you usually have a fingerprint, boom, it pops open with just your fingerprint.”

Sean Hannity hates gun locks. He views them as threat to homeowner security, but he uses them in his own home. The fact that he personally uses gun locks undercuts his argument against them. This doesn’t stop Hannity from delivering the NRA’s talking point on gun locks. Since there are no statistics about whether or not gun owners are more vulnerable to crime if they use gun locks, it is a good idea to rely on a little common sense. If you have children in your home, especially small children, then gun locks can prevent a potential tragedy.

I don’t think that gun locks will lead to the downfall of western civilization as we know it, and I definitely don’t believe that gun locks are somehow a violation of the Second Amendment. I am a believer in smart, safe, responsible gun ownership. If you have kids in the house, you should lock up your guns. I don’t know any gun owners who would argue this point. Hannity should be praised for gun locks or a safe, but he is an idiot for trying to argue against the very product that he uses in his own home.

Hannity delivered for us tonight another fine example of Fox News information dissemination. Gun locks are bad, but even though they are bad and can lead to a criminal breaking into your house and killing you if you don’t know the combination, they are still being used by the very people who are criticizing them. We all know that Fox News has a blind spot when it comes to their own hypocrisy, but even by their loose standards, this is hysterical. Hannity appeared to be completely oblivious to the obvious question. If gun locks are so bad, then why do you use them in your own home?

16 responses so far

Obama Forcefully Calls the Republican Deficit Bluff

Jun 27 2010 Published by under Featured News, Republican Party

President Barack Obama held a press conference at the conclusion of the G 20 Summit in Toronto this evening, and the highlight came at the very end when he called out the GOP rhetoric on the deficit. Obama said, “I hope some of these folks hollering about deficit and debt step up, because I am calling their bluff.”

The most interesting part of the press conference came during the last question about the United States’ ability to meet their deficit reduction goals. After describing the steps that can be taken, and the challenges, Obama said, “One of the most interesting things that’s happened over the last 18 months as president is for some reason people keep being surprised when I do what I said I was going to do. So I say I’m going to reform our healthcare system and people think, well gosh, that’s not smart politics, maybe we should hold off, or I say we’re going to move forward on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and somehow people say you know, well, why are you doing that I’m not sure it’s good politics.”

The President continued and later blasted the Republicans and called out the GOP rhetoric, “I’m doing because I said I was going to do it and it’s the right thing to do, and people should learn that lesson about me, because next year when I start presenting some very difficult choices to the country, I hope people who are hollering about deficits and debt start stepping up, because I’m calling their bluff and we’ll see how much of that, how much of the political arguments they’re making right now are real and how much of it was just policies.”

Once again, Obama is three steps ahead of the GOP. He is warning them what is coming, but they will still not be ready for what is about to hit them when he steps up and challenges them to join him and cut spending in order to trim the deficit. In an earlier portion of the press conference Obama made mention of cutting programs that don’t work, including military programs. Military contracts are one of Congress’ and especially the right wing deficit cutters favorite sources of pork, disguised as national security spending, so you can expect cries of national security as soon as Obama tries to shave a penny or remove a bloated contract.

If Obama does try to trim the fat, you can expect both Democrats and Republicans in Congress to engage in a collective chorus of wails. The dirty little secret of Congress is everyone talks about reducing the deficit, but they all love to spend. Republicans definitely have no credibility on this issue, as the tax cut and spend policies of the Bush administration and the Republican run Congress had, within five years, managed to take a surplus and turn it into a herculean deficit.

By July of 2006, before the Democrats took control of Congress, George W. Bush and the Republican controlled Congress managed to turn a $284 billion surplus into a trillion dollar deficit. At the time, Bush and the GOP owned four of the five highest yearly deficits in US history. The political reality is that Republicans have little interest in cutting spending and absolutely no interest in helping Obama, so I can already tell you how this will go. Obama will try. Republicans will obstruct, and Obama will reap the political benefits. However, it s clear that Obama is done playing games with the GOP and is now ready to challenge them to put their money where there mouths are, so to speak, and the Republican leopard will most definitely reveal its true spots.

28 responses so far

Mike Huckabee proclaims that He Not Palin Can Beat Obama

Jun 27 2010 Published by under Featured News

Mike Huckabee got aggressive with his fellow potential Republican 2012 presidential candidates today on Fox News Sunday. Huckabee anointed himself the man who can beat Obama in 2012, “I end up leading a lot of the polls. I ‘m the Republican that clearly at this point does better against Obama than any other Republican.”

Huckabee self-servingly used to the June 10 PPP poll as cover for his presidential ambitions in 2012. According to The Hill, he said, “I haven’t closed the door. I think that would be foolish on my part, especially when poll after poll shows that there is strong sentiment out there.” (He hasn’t “closed the door” because he is running).

The former Arkansas governor had some faint praise for both of his rivals Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin. Speaking of Romney, he said, “There’s no doubt in my mind that he’s running, and I think he’s a formidable candidate. I don’t think anybody can dismiss him because he has the organization. He’s got the money. He’s got sort of the inside track with a lot of the Republican establishment. Huckabee also made reference to Romney to and health care reform in Massachusetts.

Huckabee was dismissive of Palin, “She’s got the fire, the energy, and I think there are a lot of Republicans who love her, would support her, and she would be a very strong presence in a presidential primary.” (Notice that Huckabee did not say that she was formidable, but mentioned her personality, which is the political version of when you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all).

I don’t know of anything more worthless than a potential 2012 poll over two years before the election. They are fun to talk about, but Huckabee is giving the poll a little too much weight if that is his justification for labeling himself the top Republican for 2012. Mike Huckabee is trying to stake out his political 2012 turf early, but Huck has some problems. His biggest problem will be money. Romney is independently wealthy, and Palin is the GOP’s best fundraiser, which is a lot like being best looking leper in the colony, but it still means something.

The real GOP primary battle in 2012 won’t be between Romney and Huckabee. Before the race for the nomination gets to that stage, Palin and Huckabee will be battling for the white evangelical block of Republican primary voters. They both are also fighting to be the anti-Republican establishment candidate. Huckabee recently took a shot at Palin as being soft on drugs while he was on FNC’s Red Eye, and the Palin/Huckabee fight could be nasty and at the heart of the early 2012 GOP primary season.

According to a June 14, PPP poll of Republicans, Romney, Palin, Huckabee, and Gingrich are grouped pretty close together. Romney has 25% support followed by Huckabee (22%), Palin (19%), Gingrich (15%), and Ron Paul (6%) trails the pack. Huckabee is clearly exaggerating if he thinks he is the number one contender for the GOP nomination, but what is overlooked by all of these Republicans is that none of them look popular enough to beat an incumbent president in 2012. Whoever wins the GOP nomination, will have their work cut out for them against Obama.

12 responses so far

John McCain Praises Obama’s Firing of Gen. McChrystal

Jun 27 2010 Published by under Featured News

8 responses so far

Palin Drama: Live Mic Left On, Reporters Call Palin “Dumb”

Jun 26 2010 Published by under Featured News

OK, people. I tweeted Palin’s CSU Stanislaus speech tonight so you wouldn’t have to listen. I thought it was going well (sliding scale), and breathed a sigh of relief for her when it ended…only to be SHOCKED by hearing reporters discussing her performance in a brutally frank manner, reminiscent of Peggy Noonan’s open mic debacle regarding Palin. Of course, Peggy’s open mic moment left us wondering why the pundits were not being honest with us about Palin. Clearly they knew she wasn’t up to the task of Vice President. But I digress….

As we know, where ever Sarah goes, drama follows.

Sarah Palin CSU speech prior to live mic debacle

During the live mic drama at the end, the reporters said now they know that her “dumbness doesn’t come from soundbites” and wondered if she had finished ONE statement, but decided, no she had not. They laughed derisively and made jokes about having to text their conservative friends about this. Other various comments:

“I feel like I just got off a rollercoaster.”
“She didn’t finish a statement.”
“I don’t know how you’re gonna make a story out of that.” “Well, that’s the story.”
“Did she even make a point?”
“Lots of Reagan.”
“Just put as many random quotes in as you can.”

Listen Here (courtesy of Palingates ):

Or, you can you can listen to Tammy Bruce’s conservative podcast, but note that in perfect Palin fan style, she calls the techs/reporters/students “dumb bastards” — so family values! Keepin’ it classy, Tammy. Spare yourself the swearing and go to the middle of the podcast.

Oh, dear. The reporters were none too impressed. Perhaps it’s because while she was speaking at a University, she never discussed education. She use the word 4 times and still managed to never discuss it. She spoke in front of a sign reading: Vox Veritas Vita. Orwell would have been so pleased.

# Sarah Reese Jones srjones66 – Twitter Feed Sarah Palin CSU speech (Presented in reverse order because it’s 1 AM and I just listened to an entire Sarah Palin speech):



do they know the audio is still on?

oh god students now saying how bad it was how she didn’t finish one sentence

bad speech, but she didn’t make national fool of self, so it’s a win compared to palm gate.

this is why she doesn’t let press in. This is the speech of a 7th grader.

Palin just claimed Democrats defend female mutilation. #CSU, you should be ASHAMED.

room full of rich GOP they love it

dead fish again. is she quitting something else? is this the sign that she’s leaving us all?

If anyone admires this person and thinks she could or should do anything more than….I don’t know. I have serious questions for you.

slamming academics. slamming universities. bad education.

no wonder she does press black out. This is OUTRAGEOUS. Clown show.

Saying Obama doesn’t want to win war

omg attacking OBAMA

digging at liberals

She’s using random quotes from real thinkers…..but they’re a mess. not attached to an idea — just throwing them out like jingles.

She just argued against academic freedom

There is no repayment for this…..She blew my ears out.

Palin: Freedom a question of culture. Freedom not “idil” (sic). Now talking about free speech. Oh, the hubris.

Palin now talking about Hitler.

Palin is losing it

NO SHE IS NOT. Palin rah rah for women’s rights now. OMG. attacking the girls who found her contract! she almost went nuts.

How bored must this audience be? Shrill. rah. bad DC. Socialism. enshrined.

The end. Must go drink.

For those who want to view the speech…..

Updated at 4:00 AM to reflect that the people heard talking were reporters according to the Fox News station affiliate that provided the live feed.

Update: The Fox outlet notes: “During that stream, other reporters in the media overflow room were heard on our microphone, due to the unusual circumstances of how we managed to bring the live feed.

First, FOX40 News was the only station streaming a live signal from CSU Stanislaus during Sarah Palin’s presentation. Friday, we were told by officials organizing the speech that we were not permitted to beam a live signal direct from the dining hall where Sarah Palin was presenting. Instead, we were offered the opportunity to aim a FOX40 camera at a projection screen inside a room for assembled media several hundred feet from where Sarah Palin was speaking. They would not allow us to get a direct feed of audio, so we had to hold a mic up to their speakers.

Yes, see….If Sarah hadn’t sent the press to Siberia and just let them do their job the way they do it with every other politician/public speaker, this never would have happened. In other words, this is a result of Palin’s fear of the press and her resulting crazy demands. NO ONE shoots a SCREEN or holds audio equipment up to speakers in the grown up world, because grown up politicians do not demand that the press be banished from the room and from the live feed. This is ABSURD. What is Sarah Palin SO afraid of?

Here is the full transcript of her speech courtesy of palingates.

163 responses so far

Watch Sarah Palin at Stanislaus

Jun 25 2010 Published by under Featured News

41 responses so far

Older posts »